316 1035 2 PB

Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice – development” (2007-2010), funded by the
2012- Volume 21, Issue 3, pp. 5–26

government of Flanders, and published
URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-113790
A resilient society. Social work and sustainable
ISSN: 1876-8830 development [Een veerkrachtige samenleving.
URL: http://www.journalsi.org
Publisher: Igitur publishing, in cooperation Sociaal werk en duurzame ontwikkeling]
with Utrecht University of (2010a).
Applied Sciences, Faculty of Society and Law
Correspondence to: Department of Social Work,
Copyright: this work has been published under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Leuven University College, Groeneweg 151,
Derivative Works 3.0 Netherlands License
B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium.
E-mail: jef.peeters@khleuven.be
Dr. Jef Peeters has been a Professor in Social Philosophy
and Ethics at the Department of Social Work at Leuven Received: 10 February 2012
University College. He headed the research project Accepted: 4 June 2012
entitled “Orientation of social work towards sustainable Review category: Theory
S O C I A L W O R K A N D S U S TA I N A B L E
D E V E L O P M E N T: T O WA R D S A
SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL
Jef Peeters PRACTICE MODEL
ABSTRACT
Social work and sustainable development: towards a social-ecological practice model

The current social-ecological crisis will lead to major social changes, for better or for worse. Society
needs to ensure that those changes involve a transition to a more sustainable society. Since this
transition touches upon all aspects of life, social work cannot remain outside that process. This
article argues how social work practice may contribute to sustainable development, provided it
includes the ecological environment in its contextual approach. To this end, a general model for
Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice – 2012 – Volume 21, Issue 3 5
SOCIAL WORK AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
social-ecological practice has been developed, centred on the concepts of empowerment, social
capital formation and resilience building. The core concepts of the model are analysed in order to
create a coherent interpretation both in multilevel systems terms and in political terms. The social-
ecological practice model is thus presented as a political tool for social change.
Keywords
Sustainable development, transformational social work, empowerment, social capital, resilience,

multilevel social-ecological systems approach, political-ethical reflection
SAMENVATTING
Sociaal werk en duurzame ontwikkeling: naar een sociaal-ecologisch praktijkmodel

De huidige sociaal-ecologische crisis zal grote sociale veranderingen veroorzaken, ten kwade of ten
goede. De samenleving moet deze veranderingen beïnvloeden in de richting van een transitie naar
een duurzame samenleving. Omdat dat proces aan alle aspecten van ons leven raakt, kan ook het
sociaal werk er niet buiten blijven. Dit artikel argumenteert hoe sociaalwerkpraktijk kan bijdragen
aan duurzame ontwikkeling wanneer het de ecologische omgeving opneemt in een contextuele
benadering. Daartoe wordt er een algemeen model ontwikkeld voor een sociaal-ecologische
praktijk die gecentreerd is rond empowerment, vorming van sociaal kapitaal en opbouw van
veerkracht. De kernconcepten van het model worden geanalyseerd met het oog op een coherente
interpretatie, zowel in multilevel-systeemtermen als in politieke termen. Zo wordt het sociaal-
ecologische praktijkmodel voorgesteld als een politiek middel voor sociale verandering.
Trefwoorden
Duurzame ontwikkeling, transformationeel sociaal werk, empowerment, sociaal kapitaal,

veerkracht, multilevel sociaal-ecologische systeembenadering, politiek-ethische reflectie
INTRODUCTION
Our planet is suffering from the combined stress of a global ecological, financial and economic
crisis. The main victims of this crisis are those who are the least responsible for it: the poor. This
makes the relationship between the ecological crisis and the globally widening social gap an
important challenge for social work. From a social point of view, sustainable development is not
6 Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice – 2012 – Volume 21, Issue 3
Jef Peeters
in the first place about the material implications of the ecological crisis, but it calls the foundations
of our society into question. Social work needs to explore the social dimension of sustainable
development and ensure that it is incorporated into the public debate. Naturally, social work must
continue to value the principles of social justice, and stepping up the effort for a more equal society
is an integral part of the process of sustainable development. But there is more. The current social-
ecological crisis necessitates a transition towards a sustainable society, and that means a different
society. It involves a shift in society’s fundamental principles or a “paradigm shift” (Peeters, 2010b,
2011b, 2012b). The awareness of ecological limits means that the redistribution of wealth is a
more radical undertaking than we ever assumed before. Moreover, it will require us to rethink our
ideas on well-being and emancipation, because these are so strongly associated with the ability
to participate in ever-growing material prosperity. For a new idea of well-being, we will need
to safeguard the quality of our relationships at all levels, beyond the satisfaction of basic needs.
Sustainability is, thus, about the quality of our society.
Taking its internationally accepted mission as a starting point (as formulated in its international
definition), social work is well able to contribute to the moral agenda of sustainable development,
as I have already written about before in great detail (Peeters, 2010b, 2012b, 2012c). However,
for this to happen, social work needs more than ever to include the environment in its contextual
approach to practice. Furthermore, I have argued for an understanding of social work that
coincides fully with the necessary social change, and thus becomes more “transformational social
work” (Payne, 2006). This view is consistent with the implicitly political nature of the international
definition of social work. This implies that social change is a fundamental aspect of professional
social work and that it therefore has the character of a social movement, or at least is closely
related to social movements. Taking this vision as its starting point, this article develops a general
model or framework for social-ecological practice centred on empowerment, social capital
formation and resilience building1. It tries to bring together some known elements in a coherent
way and with a dual approach to society: systemic and political. The model presented gives rise
to a political vision of sustainable development, and it is therefore to this concept that we will turn
first.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PICTURE
Sustainable development can be defined from a range of interest-oriented points of view. It is

essentially a political concept, a contested area of social discourse on the direction of society
(Baker, 2006; Peeters, 2012b, 2012c). This does not change by using the term “transition”.
As such, the communicative power of a representation is an important means by which to establish

a social agenda. To present a general model with which to frame the contribution of social work
practice to sustainable development, we first need to establish an appropriate representation of
sustainable development.
Sustainable development is most commonly understood as an interaction between three

dimensions – the social, the ecological, and the economic – as embodied in the widely used
notion of the “triple bottom line” (Elkington, 1998) or “triple P”: people, planet, and prosperity
or profit. Since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, the
United Nations has favoured the notion of “prosperity” rather than “profit”, in order to indicate
what is the finality of the economy from the point of view of society (European Commission,
2002). Today, the dimensions of sustainable development are often viewed in terms of capital,
including social, ecological and economic capital, but also human and financial capital (Parkin,
2010). Many representations are based on a triangular relationship between these three
dimensions and suggest that sustainable development is a reconciliation or balance between
them all. However, representations of this kind are problematic because they put the three
dimensions on an equal footing with one another, and do not include any notion of ecological
limits.
I have argued elsewhere that the required transition to sustainability must be based on an
ecological worldview with an intrinsically relational character, and that systemic representations are
the most suitable (Peeters, 2010b, 2012b). According to a more realistic image of the relationship
between the dimensions of sustainable development, society is embedded in the ecosystem, and
the economy in turn is part of society (see Figure 1) (Parkin, 2010). Such a representation with
nested systems also reflects the basic tenets of ecological economics (Daly, 1999, 2008). Moreover,
the relational character of the ecological worldview is further revealed by the asymmetrical position
of the embedded spheres. If reality is essentially relational, then there is no centred subject, nor
any other centred object or system. This view encourages society to adopt a more humble attitude
towards the Earth’s ecosystem and puts economy in a serving role.
This representation offers a number of clear advantages: it situates sustainable development

in a more realistic framework, allowing the ecosystem to limit society and the economy. It also
shows that the socio-cultural meaning of ecology is larger than its valorization in economic
terms. Finally, it corresponds well with the contextual representations used in social work’s
ecological systems thinking, even though the biophysical environment was mainly not taken into
Jef Peeters
Ecosystem
Society
Economy
Figure 1: Three dimensions of sustainable development.
consideration (Coates, 2003; Peeters, 2012b). However, Figure 1 clearly shows why ecological
issues are also social issues and vice versa. In addition, this representation offers the opportunity
to look at systemic interactions from the perspective of society. Economic production – as well
as how humans behave towards the natural environment – is a socially mediated process, hence
the location of the social sphere between the economic and ecological spheres. The mediating
position of the social sphere indicates the importance of social – and political – action in the
transition towards sustainability. So, the contribution of the economy to sustainable development
may be seen as a cooperative action between responsible business and other social actors (see
Figure 2).
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
Roome’s (2008) model of sustainable development is not only useful for framing the economy
but also other social practices – such as science, technological research, health care and so on – as
basically social-ecological2. In the same way, we can look at social work as a domain of practices
which has a systemic place in society. Moreover, this perspective accords with a tradition of
ecosystems thinking in social work (Coates, 2003; Peeters, 2012b). Framing the problems that
social workers deal with as social-ecological issues may cause us to adjust the current objectives
and working methods of social work. As an initial approach, we propose that social work can
Environment
is better
protected
and
Society seeks a more
improved
environmentally sustainable
and socially
cohesive system
Economy Action through

contributes collaborative governance,
through innovation and change
responsible
business
Nigel Roome
Figure 2: Sustainable development (Roome, 2008).
contribute to sustainable development by building social capital by focusing on empowerment in

cooperation with other social actors (see Figure 3).
Society seeks a more

environmentally sustainable
and socially
cohesive system
Building
Social Work Social Capital
contributes
through
empowerment
Figure 3: Sustainable development and social work.
This model also has heuristic possibilities for formulating more specific objectives for social work in
relation to sustainable development. Figure 4 illustrates this with regard to the contribution of social
Jef Peeters
Ecosystem
Society
More inclusive
Economy: labour model
CSR
SE
SW:
Empowerment
Figure 4: Sustainable development and the social economy.
economy (SE) to a more inclusive model of labour. What are the opportunities for cooperation
between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the empowerment approach of social work (SW)?
A further elaboration of the model also provides a heuristic for multi-level cooperative action
built around the key interacting signifiers of empowerment, resilience, and social capital. The
relationships between them are presented in Figure 5, in which empowerment stands both for
the overall process of practice and for the result of this process: actual social change (DuBois &
Miley, 2005). We can interpret the process as follows: empowerment starts from the capacities
and strengths of people – individuals and groups – in order to enhance their social capital. Social
capital is a basis for resilience. And resilience is a condition for empowerment, and thus for actual
social change in a bottom-up process. One should not see this as a simple linear process, but as
a complex process in which the various elements can be connected by many positive feedback
loops.
We thus have a representation of a process of social change from a functional point of view, which
means: how we can make change happen. But social processes are never ethically or politically
neutral and so, they must be accompanied and even led by political-ethical reflection and discussion
about the desirable direction of action. This emphasizes the importance of the accord between the
ethical agenda of sustainable development and the mission of social work (Peeters, 2010b, 2012c).
Process of empowerment
Empowerment
as actual social change
Desirable
direction?
Resilience
Connected
Social (cultural) capital processes
of
individual
and
Own strengths social-political
change
Figure 5: Process of empowerment.
THE CORE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL PRACTICE MODEL
Viewed from an ecosystems perspective, both social work and sustainable development can be seen
as taking place on a number of levels, from the micro-individual to the macro-community level.
The same applies to empowerment, social capital and resilience. Moreover, just like sustainable
development or transition, these concepts can be considered political. And although they may look
familiar to social workers, an appropriate and coherent interpretation with a view to social change
towards a sustainable society requires a more in-depth discussion. In the current neo-liberal context,
we can see that they have narrowed down to individual terms. So, from a relational worldview, we
want to shift attention from an individual interpretation to a social-ecological.
Empowerment
Empowerment builds on a fundamental shift in social work practice away from the deficit-
focused medical pathology model towards a more positive view of the service-users’ capabilities
to engage in social action. Service users are seen as “partners” or participants in a process of
learning, development, and social change (Pease, 2002; Dubois & Miley, 2005; Driessens & Van
Regenmortel, 2006). From this position, empowerment is paradigmatic for a participatory approach
to all social work, and thus stands in the core of our framework for practice. Empowerment implies
Jef Peeters
a positive or proactive multi-level approach whereby people gain power, and is thus both the
process of developing the capability for social action and the goal of social change (Peeters, 2008).
Empowerment suggests both individual determination over one’s own life and democratic par-
ticipation in the life of one’s community, often through mediating structures such as schools,
neighbourhoods, churches, and other voluntary organizations. Empowerment conveys both a
psychological sense of personal control or influence and a concern with actual social influence,
political power, and legal rights. It is a multilevel construct applicable to individual citizens as
well as to organizations and neighbourhoods; it suggests the study of people in context.
(Rappaport, 1987, p. 121)
The presence of power in empowerment stresses its political character, which requires a clear
understanding. According to Hannah Arendt, power indicates a relationship between people and is
distinct from the notion of strength, which is a characteristic of an individual entity.
Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act, but to act in concert. Power is never
the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as
the group keeps together. (Arendt, 1972, p. 143)
Power is often seen as negative because it implies domination or power over. But for Arendt,
power is a matter of capacity through cooperation and partnership – or power with (Mary, 2008).
This latter view of power is the one that is relevant for empowerment (Nixon, 2001): a process of
positive interaction, in which the common capacity for action increases through recognizing and
pooling the particular capabilities of individuals or groups. We need both notions of power. So,
where there are situations of domination, empowerment becomes a process of building counter-
power for social change. In that respect a “strengths approach” has to pay attention to people’s
capabilities to resist domination (Pease, 2002; Guo & Tsui, 2010).
The relational and collaborative character of empowerment is also underlined by authors

who believe that the methodological underpinning of empowerment can be found in social
group work (e.g. Vansevenant, Driessens & Van Regenmortel, 2008). Maton (2008, p. 20)
defines empowerment as “a group-based, participatory, developmental process through which
marginalized or oppressed individuals and groups gain greater control over their lives and
environment, acquire valued resources and basic rights, and achieve important life goals and
reduced social marginalization”.
However, empowerment must be divorced from the individualizing trend within neoliberal
free market ideology which is depoliticizing social work. Empowerment requires social workers
to take a stand against injustice and individualizing activation policies and programmes which
disregard the structural causes of unemployment problems and ascribe everything to individual
responsibility. A transformative, emancipatory interpretation of empowerment is based on the idea
of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (Peeters, 2010b, 2012b, 2012c) and collaboration.
This is also important for an emancipatory view of sustainable development, since many policy
approaches focus on behavioural influence rather than on the power to act. They approach people
as consumers, rather than citizens. On the other hand, from the empowerment perspective,
“co-creation” seems to be a good term to express the positive approach to people working
together for a just and sustainable future3.
Social capital
There is a functional and moral argument for the importance of social capital formation in sustainable
development. The global social-ecological crisis will inevitably lead to major and rapid social changes.
Such a radical social transition will demand considerable adaptability or resilience from individuals
and social systems alike. And resilience depends on social capital (see below). Moreover, citizens
have the right to participate in the changes that will lead them towards a new, more sustainable
way of life. Social capital is related to social solidarity and social inclusion, in contradistinction to the
competition and social exclusion that characterize the economic growth model. So improving social
capital is simultaneously a condition and a part of the sustainability transition.
Social capital resides in diverse groups, organizations, and communities, social networks, and formal
and informal social support systems. As an economic metaphor, however, one runs the risk of
seeing this social capital merely as an investment in social purposes and goals (Peeters, 2010b), but
a purely functional implementation is not adequate for an emancipatory perspective. Social work
must emphasize the intrinsic quality of trusting relationships, strong communities, and resilient
networks as crucial to well-being. They are also the basis for humans’ capacity to discover meaning
in their lives, and thus to be ready to take steps in a process of social change. In this way we will
see that meaning and sense-making are important factors in people’s resilience (see Figure 7).
Like empowerment, social capital formation refers to a cooperative process of building and
maintaining social connections, networks, and supports as a buffer against adversity. It can be
defined as follows:
Jef Peeters
Social capital is the process of building trusting relationships, mutual understanding and shared
actions that bring together individuals, communities and institutions. This process enables
cooperative action that generates opportunity and/or resources realized through networks,
shared norms and social agency. (Loeffler et al., 2004, p. 24)
This definition incorporates various levels of action, which we also find in Mathbor’s three steps
model for building social capital based on the World Bank’s classification of it (see Figure 6).
Although there are discussions about the exact delimitation of the different levels of social capital,
and they include a complex of actions, for our purposes here it is sufficient to recognize the
importance of relationships and networking at various levels. The basis is a process of bonding:
building trusting relationships between individuals, in the first place families and close friendships,
but also other primary groups or communities. At a second level, a process of bridging makes
connections and networks between those groups. At a third level neighbourhoods, social groups,
organizations, movements and networks establish relationships with local authorities, governments,
public institutions and large organizations: linking.
From the perspective of empowerment, this is a cooperative process of building power for social
change. So if social-ecological social work wants to realize its structural agenda, this scheme
indicates both the importance and the possibilities of networking with social movements.
Since the linking process may yield a relationship of cooperation as well as one of resistance,
Governments
Public institutions
Large organizations
....
Linking
Bridging
Bonding
Figure 6: Steps in building social capital (according to Mathbor, 2007, p. 360).
we need broad coalitions to push authorities in the right direction. It would indeed be not
justified that linking would create new relationships of domination, for example, which we see
as a consequence of neo-liberal activation policies. Without the development of power within
the civil society, social work will be doomed to operate within the status quo. This process
starts from the point where social workers as professionals do not allow themselves to be
individualized, and take responsibility for society with their organizations. And when they see
service users or community members as partners, they can set off on the – not easy and possibly
long – road to the formation of social movements, or to cooperate with them (Peeters, 2010b,
2012a, 2012b).
Resilience
To understand the fundamental significance of resilience for a sustainability transition, we need

to begin with our knowledge how social-ecological systems function (Walker, Holling, Carpenter
& Kinzing, 2004; Walker & Salt, 2006). We therefore assume that each social connection is
embedded in a broader social-ecological context. And to connect social capital with resilience, the
scheme in Figure 6 is interpreted in terms of social-ecological systems.
Social-ecological systems are dynamic entities, characterized by adaptive cycles of growth,

conservation, release and reorganization. Different systems are in different phases in that process,
and interact across multiple scales, which is called “panarchy”. Under this approach, resilience is an
important systems characteristic which strongly influences the sustainability of a social-ecological
system. It is “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing
change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks”
(Walker et al., 2004).
This definition implies that the requirements for resilience vary according to the potential impact
of the external challenges to a system. For example, a social organization that unexpectedly has
to deal with extra work can solve that by temporarily working more overtime, and returning to
normal afterwards. On the other hand, with a major increase in certain problems – such as that of
unemployment in times of economic crisis – the same organization may require a more thorough
restructuring. At the wider systems level, we have to consider how our social security system
should be reformed, in order to retain its social security and welfare function, when for reasons
of sustainability the policy of economic growth is no longer an option (Peeters, 2010b, 2012b,
2012c).
Jef Peeters
Therefore, resilience is related to two other system characteristics: (i) adaptability, “the capacity
of actors in a system to influence resilience”, and (ii) transformability, “the capacity to create a
fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions
make the existing system untenable” (Walker et al., 2004). So, on the one hand resilience will be an
important element in overcoming the disturbance caused by social-ecological systems in situations
of crisis, such as when ecological disasters occur due to climate change. On the other hand, it
implies a capacity for change, thus the development of resilience may contribute to a sustainability
transition process and in this case does not involve merely adapting to the social status quo.
Empirical studies show that the sustainability of a social-ecological system depends on striking
an adequate balance between the efficiency of its processes and exchanges with other systems,
and its resilience (Lietaer, Ulanowicz & Goerner, 2009). The link with social capital is that
resilience is based on a variety of subsystems, possibilities and processes, and on the number
and nature of the connections between them. Sufficient diversity and connections provide a
kind of surplus of opportunities for exchange and feedback. This redundancy functions as a
back-up in problem situations, provides exit routes and alternative solutions. Accordingly, the
sustainability of social-ecological systems depends on, amongst other things, the presence of
sufficient social capital. In addition, the importance of redundancy draws the attention to the
personal capacities, knowledge and skills of the individuals in a system. As such, a resilience-
oriented approach to education and training will promote the broadest possible development
of human capabilities, rather than competences that are too often only connected with
predetermined objectives.
Having said this, if a system performs below optimum efficiency, this will also lead to productivity
problems. At the same time, however, unilaterally striving for efficiency by streamlining subsystems
and processes, and rationalizing “redundant” connections and possibilities will undermine the
resilience of systems. They would become stiff and brittle, which undermines their effectiveness in
the longer term. In addition to the diversity of connections, modularity and tightness of feedback,
both in time and in space, are also important in creating resilience (Walker & Salt, 2006). It is a
matter of intervening in time, and thus avoiding the unnecessary proliferation of problems. This
again links back to social capital and community building, beginning on a local and regional scale,
with subsidiarity between the different levels.
There is another resilience theory which is rooted in psychology. However, when in this case
resilience is interpreted in terms of a relational view of individuals, it can be integrated into a
systems approach at all levels of society. From our perspective this means a reframing within
one social-ecological systems approach. That is all the more important because this concept of
resilience has recently been bolstered by the “strengths perspective” in social work (Saleebey,
2009), and is seen as an essential precondition for empowerment (Van Regenmortel, 2002). It
has been defined as “the capability of a person or a system (group, community) to lead a good
life and to achieve […] positive development despite difficult living conditions” (Vanistendael,
1997, cited by Driessens & Van Regenmortel, 2006, p. 115).
Van Regenmortel argues that resilience is a social construct and, as such, is not a fixed
personality trait but the result of a dynamic, non-deterministic, context-related (multi-layered)
process of development. On the personal level, resilience is a social-psychological concept,
then, which allows us to conceive of it – as at the other levels – as a systems concept and
to link it with social capital. Moreover, many factors contribute to personal resilience, but
it is based on bonding and engagement with significant others and the informal social
networks, as presented in the casita model or “house of resilience” (Figure 7). As with our
remarks on empowerment, an individualistic interpretation of resilience must also be avoided.
Appealing to personal resilience is no substitute for social policy (Van Regenmortel & Peeters,
2010).
Figure 7: The house of resilience (according to Vanistendael & Lecomte, 2000).
Jef Peeters
A SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL PRACTICE MODEL OF SOCIAL WORK AND SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT
After this brief exposition of the core elements of the empowerment scheme (Figure 5), we will
now propose a general practice model for social-ecological work, using the conceptual framework
of the “eco-social approach” of Matthies, Närhi and Ward (2001). This was developed as a
framework for community work in European cities, and aimed to build a more sustainable living
environment on the basis of three ideas which encompass one another and can be represented by
concentric circles:
1. The eco-social approach is an umbrella concept that encompasses a broad contextual perspec-
tive that corresponds to the classic person-in-environment configuration in social work but also
extends its mainly social focus to the biophysical environment.
2. At its core is the social action that is inherent to empowerment, a citizen-oriented practice with
service users as partners in a process of learning, development, and social change. This service-
user perspective shifts the focus from social exclusion to social capital (Boeck, McCullough &
Ward, 2001).
3. Social impact assessment (SIA) as a participatory research methodology for social workers and
service users – or community members is the bridge between the social-ecological environment
and social action (Närhi, 2001, 2004).
According to Närhi and Matthies (2001), the eco-social approach provides:
a holistic and reflective perspective to social work methods. Eco-social work is a theoretical-
methodological approach, and as such is not a new method. Rather its aim is to unite all
methodological levels of social work. At the same time, the eco-social approach to social work
is a point of view that can be applied to any level of social work methods. (p. 36)
This corresponds with the core of our action model for social-ecological work. So although
Matthies’ eco-social approach was developed within community work practice, it can be applied
to other types of social work intervention. Interventions which aim to bring about structural or
political change traditionally belong to the social work profile and remain crucial due to the key role
of greater social justice at the heart of sustainable development (Peeters, 2010b, 2012c). Advocacy
and politically oriented actions are needed – more than ever – in this process of major social change.
In addition to SIA, other types of participatory research will play an important role. A good example
is the project “Energy and Poverty” undertaken by Samenlevingsopbouw, the Flemish organization
for community development. In this project, underprivileged people are continuously involved as
“experts through experience” to support policy-oriented proposals and actions (Peeters, 2012b).
Another important aspect of a sustainability transition is social learning, which can help people
leave the road to “unsustainability” and take the lesser-known path to sustainability in many
fields: production and consumption, way of living and lifestyle, mobility, leisure activities, travel or
attitude towards open spaces and nature, and so on. These learning processes are mainly informal,
yet they require renewed attention from social workers, because they are attempts to align social
action with the social-ecological context. As such, the goal of social learning could be given a more
explicit role from the start in organizing some social activities (Wals, 2007). In addition, it is crucial
for social change not to disconnect community work and social learning from political work and
to avoid reinforcing the trend towards depoliticization that characterizes neo-liberal society (Van
Poeck, Vandenabeele & Wildemeersch, 2010).
By adding the concentric concepts of Matthies’ “eco-social approach” to the representation

of sustainable development that we saw in Figure 3, and broadening it to include more types
of intervention, Figure 8 presents an integrative model of generic social work practice as a
contribution to sustainable development. It is an action paradigm centred on empowerment and
Ecosystem
Society
Social learning
Participatory research
Political work...
Building
Empowerment social capital
& resilience
Figure 8: A social-ecological approach to social action.
Jef Peeters
building up social capital (and resilience), while the dotted circle around the core of empowerment
indicates that social work permeates society through a variety of practices. Cooperation with
other actors in society is represented by the coming together of the two arrows. Applying the
terminology of the current ecological systems theory, we call this a social-ecological approach.
Since this model has been conceptualized as a way of building positive power for change towards
a just and sustainable society, the need to connect all the elements of the model cannot be
overemphasized. However, this connection is not a theoretical matter but a matter for practice
because this complex model is not a unified theory and contains heterogeneous elements. As
mentioned before, a systems approach can teach us a great deal about the functioning of social-
ecological processes, which is a basic condition for a good society, yet it does not define what is
good in an ethical sense. Political-ethical insights and reflections therefore have a special status,
in order to avoid an approach that tends to completely interpret society in naturalistic terms.
Correspondingly, there is an irresolvable tension between an ecological approach and an ethical
approach, especially since social work supports the struggle for universally guaranteed rights and
services (McNutt & Hoff, 1994). For example, the need for decentralization to create resilient
systems (modularity), or the importance of local communities in developing a new relationship
with the natural environment, in practice require a reconciliation with the notions of universal
rights and equal citizenship on a global scale.
Furthermore, specific methods and practices depend on a careful analysis of the specific social-
ecological context in question and the place of social work within it. That goes for the quality of the
natural and built environment, access to and distribution of resources, systems of production and
consumption; but it also applies to important social conditions for social change, such as the political
system, the situation of civil society and social movements, their relationship with social work,
the extent to which there is (still) a welfare state, and so on. So within the same social-ecological
approach, concrete practices may be very different. Elsewhere, we brought together some examples
of practice in Flanders, Belgium (Peeters, 2010a). We also made a more comprehensive list of
social-ecological interventions on the basis of three categories: mitigating the negative effects of the
current crisis, preparing people for change, and participating in change (Peeters, 2011b, 2012b).
CONCLUSION
Today’s social-ecological crisis indicates that our global social system has arrived at an impasse.
Society is facing major changes that will affect many aspects of our lives. Sustainable development
means that society has to take control of this major transition in a positive way. Social work cannot
stand idly by, and engaging in that process of change provides an opportunity. To this end, a
social-ecological approach is presented as a framework for action. At its core sits empowerment as
a process of building cooperative power for change, with strengths, social capital and resilience as
mutually reinforcing building blocks.
Complex problems call for complex action, and taking a coherent social-ecological approach needs
to fulfil several conditions:
• An
ecological or “relational” worldview: people must be seen as part of a network of
relationships with other people, and this network itself is embedded in an ecosystem.
• A multilevel systems approach: social action takes place at all levels of these networks, and
conceptualizing them as social-ecological systems is helpful for a realistic approach of action
and social change. This implies that social action should address all levels and the connections
between them at the same time, and that social work has to build alliances with other social
actors.
• Co-creation is seen as a general denominator for a bottom-up collaborative process of social
change.
• Community building and networking – in many variations – have a pivotal role in building
resilience and power for change. Social work practice, which works mainly with individuals or
families, has to explore how to join these processes.
• Political-ethical reflection is an ongoing exercise through which to guide the process of social
change in the desired direction of “just sustainability”.
The current crisis offers an opportunity for change towards a just and sustainable society, provided
that we face both the complexity and the opportunities provided by social action. To that end, the
social-ecological approach presented in this paper may provide a useful framework.
N o tes
1 This article relates about our contribution at the 2nd ENSACT Conference (Peeters, 2011a) and
elaborates on Peeters, 2010b, 2011b who presents this discussion in Dutch.
2 In literature, the term “eco-social” is also used. We prefer “social-ecological” because this is con-
sistent with the term “social-ecological systems” in current systems theory (Walker et al., 2004).
3 I thank Prof. Dr. Gabi Cačinovič Vodringčič (University of Ljubljana) for this suggestion.
Jef Peeters
REFERENCES
Arendt, H. (1972). Crises of the Republic. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Baker, S. (2006). Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
Boeck, T., McCullough, P., & Ward, D. (2001). Increasing social capital to combat social exclusion.
The Social Action contribution. In A.-L. Matthies, K. Nähri & D. Ward (Eds.), The eco-social
approach in social work (pp. 84–107). Jyväskylä: Sophi.
Coates, J. (2003). Ecology and Social Work. Toward a New Paradigm. Halifax: Fernwood
Publishing.
Daly, H. (1999). Uneconomic growth: in theory, in fact, in history, and in relation to globalization.
Clemens lecture, October 25, Saint John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota. Retrieved June
13, 2011, from http://www.csbsju.edu/Documents/Clemens%20Lecture/lecture/Book99.pdf
Daly, H. (2008). Ecological economics and sustainable development. Selected essays of Herman
Daly. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Driessens, K., & Regenmortel, T. Van (2006). Bind-Kracht in armoede: Leefwereld en
hulpverlening [Empowerment and linking in poverty. Life world and social work intervention].
Leuven: LannooCampus.
DuBois, B., & Miley, K. (2005). Social Work. An Empowering Profession (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Gabriola Island BC: New Society Publishers.
European Commission (2002). The World Summit on Sustainable Development. People, planet,
prosperity. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/wssd/documents/wssd_
brochure.pdf
Guo, W., & Tsui, M. (2010). From resilience to resistence: A reconstruction of the strengths
perspective in social work practice. International Social Work, 53(2), 233–245.
Lietaer, B., Ulanowicz, R., & Goerner, S. (2009). Options for managing a systemic bank crisis.
Sapiens-journal, 2(1). Retrieved June 15, 2011, from http://sapiens.revues.org/747
Loeffler, D.N., Christiansen, D.C., Tracy, M.B., Secret, M.C., Ersing, R., Fairchild, S.R., &
Sutphen, R. (2004). Social capital for social work: Towards a definition and conceptual framework.
Social Development Issues, 26(2/3), 22–38.
Mary, N. (2008). Social work in a sustainable world. Chicago: Lyceum Books.
Mathbor, G.M. (2007). Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters. The
roll of social work in building social capital for sustainable disaster relief and management.
International Social Work, 50(3), 357–369.
Maton, K.I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development,

community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41(1-2), 4–21.
Matthies, A.-L., Närhi, K., & Ward, D. (Eds.). (2001). The eco-social approach in social work.
Jyväskylä: Sophi.
McNutt, J., & Hoff, M. (1994). Conclusion. Dilemmas and challenges for the future of social
welfare and social work. In M. Hoff & J. McNutt (Eds.), The Global Environmental Crisis.
Implications for Social Welfare and Social Work (pp. 297–305). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Närhi, K. (2001). Social impact assessment. New challenges for social work?. In A.-L. Matthies, K.
Nähri & D. Ward (Eds.), The Ecosocial Approach in Social Work (pp. 54–83). Jyväskylä:
Sophi.
Närhi, K. (2004). The eco-social approach in social work and the challenges to the expertise
of social work. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://
dissertations.jyu.fi/studeduc/9513918343.pdf
Närhi, K., & Matthies, A.-L. (2001). What is the ecological (self-)consciousness of social work?
Perspectives on the relationship between social work and ecology. In A.-L. Matthies,
K. Nähri & D. Ward (Eds.), The eco-social approach in social work (pp. 16–53). Jyväskylä:
Sophi.
Nixon, J. (2001). Imagining ourselves into being: conversing with Hannah Arendt. Pedagogy,
Culture and Society, 9(2), 221–236.
Parkin, S. (2010). The positive deviant. Sustainability leadership in a perverse world. London:
Earthscan.
Payne, M. (2006). What is professional social work? (2nd ed.). Bristol: The Polity Press.
Pease, B. (2002). Rethinking empowerment: A post-modern appraisal for emancipatory practice.
British Journal of Social Work, 30(2), 135–147.
Peeters, J. (2008). Empowerment: Een antwoord op het pleidooi voor verantwoordelijkheid
[Empowerment: An answer to the plea for responsibility]. In J. Zeedijk & P. van Bortel (Eds.),
Bedrogen door de elite? Kritische beschouwingen bij Theodore Dalrymples cultuuranalyse
[Betrayed by the elite? Critical reflections on Theodore Dalrymple’s analysis of culture]
(pp. 72–82). Kapellen: Pelckmans.
Peeters, J. (Ed.). (2010a). Een veerkrachtige samenleving. Sociaal werk en duurzame ontwikkeling
[A resilient society. Social work and sustainable development] (pp. 19–99). Berchem: EPO.
Peeters, J. (2010b). Een oriënterend kader [A guiding framework]. In J. Peeters (Ed.), Een
veerkrachtige samenleving. Sociaal werk en duurzame ontwikkeling [A resilient society. Social
work and sustainable development] (pp. 19–99). Berchem: EPO.
Jef Peeters
Peeters, J. (2011a). Social sustainable development and social work. Keynote presentation at
the 2nd ENSACT Conference: Social action in Europe: Sustainable social development and
economic challenges. Brussels, 10–13 April. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://www.
ensact.org/index/pages/id_page-38/lang-en
Peeters, J. (2011b). Sociaal werk en duurzame ontwikkeling: naar een sociaal-ecologische praktijk
[Social work and sustainable development: to a social-ecological practice]. Welzijnsgids –
Welzijnszorg, Algemeen welzijnswerk, 83(December), 25–50.
Peeters, J. (2012a). A comment on “Climate change: Social workers’ roles and contributions
to policy debates and interventions”. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(1),
105–107.
Peeters, J. (2012b). The place of social work in sustainable development: Towards ecosocial
practice. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), 287–298.
Peeters, J. (2012c). Sustainable development: A mission for social work? A normative approach.
Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 21(2), 5–22.
Poeck, K. Van, Vandenabeele, J., & Wildemeersch, D. (2010). Sociaal werk, duurzame ontwikkeling
en sociaal leren: een vruchtbare coalitie? [Social work, sustainable development and social
learning: a fruitful coalition?]. In J. Peeters (Ed.), Een veerkrachtige samenleving. Sociaal werk
en duurzame ontwikkeling (pp. 117–130). Berchem: EPO.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory of
community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 121–144.
Regenmortel, T. Van (2002). Empowerment en maatzorg. Een krachtengerichte psychologische kijk
op armoede [Empowerment and tailor made care. A strenghts oriented psychological view on
poverty]. Leuven: Acco.
Regenmortel, T. Van, & Peeters, J. (2010). Verbindend werken in de hulpverlening: Bouwsteen
voor een veerkrachtige samenleving [Connecting people within social work interventions:
Building block for a resilient society]. In J. Peeters (Ed.), Een veerkrachtige samenleving.
Sociaal werk en duurzame ontwikkeling (pp. 133–146). Berchem: EPO.
Roome, N. (2008). Sustainability management: less waste, more profit!? Management education
for sustainability: An agenda for reform. Presented at the 13th Annual Conference Network of
International Business Schools (NIBS), 15 May 2008, KHLeuven, Belgium.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2009). The strengths perspective in social work practice (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson Education.
Vanistendael, S. (1997). Hoop doet leven. Over de weerbaarheid van kinderen met problemen
[Hope springs eternal. About the resilience of children with problems]. Unpublished text of
study day, BICE/VVJG, Genève/Brussel.
Vanistendael, S., & Lecomte, J. (2000). Le bonheur est toujours possible. Construire la résilience
[Happiness is always possible. Building resilience]. Paris: Bayard.
Vansevenant, K., Driessens, K., & Regenmortel, T. Van (2008). Bind-Kracht in armoede:
Krachtgerichte hulpverlening in dialoog [Empowerment and linking in poverty:
Power oriented intervention in dialogue]. Leuven: LannooCampus.
Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., & Kinzing, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2). Retrieved May 26,
2011, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking. Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing
world. Washington: Island Press.
Wals, A. (Ed.). (2007). Social learning towards a sustainable world: Principles, perspectives, and
praxis. Wageningen: Academic Publishers.

316 1035 2 PB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

316 1035 2 PB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

316 1035 2 PB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice – development” (2007-2010), funded by the

2012- Volume 21, Issue 3, pp. 5–26

University College. He headed the research project Accepted: 4 June 2012

entitled “Orientation of social work towards sustainable Review category: Theory

Jef Peeters PRACTICE MODEL

Social work and sustainable development: towards a social-ecological practice model

Sustainable development, transformational social work, empowerment, social capital, resilience,

Sociaal werk en duurzame ontwikkeling: naar een sociaal-ecologisch praktijkmodel

Duurzame ontwikkeling, transformationeel sociaal werk, empowerment, sociaal kapitaal,

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PICTURE

Sustainable development can be defined from a range of interest-oriented points of view. It is

As such, the communicative power of a representation is an important means by which to establish

Sustainable development is most commonly understood as an interaction between three

This representation offers a number of clear advantages: it situates sustainable development

Figure 1: Three dimensions of sustainable development.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Economy Action through

Figure 2: Sustainable development (Roome, 2008).

contribute to sustainable development by building social capital by focusing on empowerment in

Society seeks a more

Figure 3: Sustainable development and social work.

Figure 4: Sustainable development and the social economy.

Figure 5: Process of empowerment.

THE CORE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL PRACTICE MODEL

The relational and collaborative character of empowerment is also underlined by authors

Figure 6: Steps in building social capital (according to Mathbor, 2007, p. 360).

To understand the fundamental significance of resilience for a sustainability transition, we need

Social-ecological systems are dynamic entities, characterized by adaptive cycles of growth,

Figure 7: The house of resilience (according to Vanistendael & Lecomte, 2000).

A SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL PRACTICE MODEL OF SOCIAL WORK AND SUSTAINABLE

According to Närhi and Matthies (2001), the eco-social approach provides:

By adding the concentric concepts of Matthies’ “eco-social approach” to the representation

Figure 8: A social-ecological approach to social action.

Maton, K.I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development,

You might also like